F 685 
S53 

Copy 1 



THE KANSAS QUESTION. 



SPEECH 




HON. HENRY M. SHAW, 



^ <s 






OF NORTH CAROLINA, 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 20, 1858. 



The House being in the Committee of Hie Whole on the 
suite of the Union- 
Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina, said: I confess, 
Mr. Chairman, that, after the long discussion 
which we have heard here on this floor in regard 
to the question of the admission of Kansas under 
the Lecorapton constitution, 1 feel no small de- 
gree of embarrassment in approaching' that sub- 
ject. Indeed, after having refrained from enter- 
ing the chase while the game was fairly afoot, I 
should not, at this late hour, have sought the in- 
dulgence of the committee, were it not for the 
strange and extraordinary speech of my colleague 
from the fifth district, [Mr. Gilmer,] which it is 
now my purpose to review in the brief hour 
which is allotted to me on this occasion. In do- 
ing this, I desire to premise that I have no com- 
plaint to make on account of my colleague's 
votes against the admission of Kansas, although 
I believe they are in direct opposition to the rights 
and interests of his constituents and mine, and 
tending to the perpetration of an act by this Con- 
gress which is characterized by the leading Know 
Nothing organ in North Carolina as an " unpar- 
alleled outrage." That, however, is a matter be- 
tween him and the people who sent him here to 
uphold their rights and defend their honor; and 
they, I doubt not, will in good time pass upon 
his conduct. But, sir, it is my right to examine 
with all freedom, as I trust I shall with equal 
fairness, the sentiments he has expressed, and 
the positions he has assumed, and to repel, in a 
proper spirit, the attack he has thought proper to 
make upon the Executive and the Democratic 
party. 

I regretted, Mr. Chairman, to hear the rebuke 
administered by my colleague to those southern 
gentlemen who have spoken, perhaps with intem- 
perate heat, of the many aggressions of the North 
upon the rights of the South. It is true that 
in the outset of his remarks he disapproved the 
violent assaults of northern members also; but, 
throughout his whole speech, there seemed to be 
a disposition to ignore the wrongs we have suf- 



' fered. Not one word to indicate that we are the 
party assailed, and that the Black Republicans 
I have no just ground upon which they can base 
J the malignant attacks they are constantly making 
upon us. Sir, I do not myself approve the tone 
and temper which some gentlemen on this side 
, have indulged in. I do not admire that sort of 
| warfare; and, with due deference to them, I do 
not think southern gentlemen ought to participate 
i in it; but when we remember that for many years 
the South has been assailed in her dearest mter- 
; ests; her constitutional rights disregarded; laws 
passed in accordance with a plain and unequivo- 
cal provision of the Constitution, designed to pro- 
> tect her in her slave property, nullified and tram- 
pled under foot in several of the northern States; 
efforts made by a powerful party, sectional in its. 
character, and led on by talented, sagacious, and 
; unscrupulous men, to deprive the South of her just 
participation in the administration of the Federal 
i Government, and openly declaring it to be their 
. settled determination to prevent the admission of 
any more slave States; when we have been com- 
, pelled to sit here, day after day, week after week, 
' and month after month, and hearthe slnveholding 
. States held up to the scorn and detestation of the 
: world, our people stigmatized as infidels, vilified 
and abused in the coarsest billingsgate to be found 
! in the Black Republican vocabulary, by the fa- 
j natics who crowded around my colleague, and cor- 
j dially congratulated him, at the conclusion of his 
I speech; is it strange, is it to be wondered at, that 
southern members of this House, thus goaded, 
! should be found sometimes yielding to the honest 
| impulses of their nature, and denouncing, in severe 
I but just terms, those common disturbers of the 
1 public peace, and traitors to the Constitution and 
I the Union? Mr. Chairman, unlike my colleague, 
I I can forgive something to the spiritof patriotism; 
and while 1 may not approve the intemperate 
speeches sometimes made by gentlemen on this 
side, 1 cannot but contrast their course with that 
of my colleague; while I admire the zeal and de- 
I votion to the rights of their own section which 
I prompt them, especially as i feel and know that 



it is only by an uncompromising adherence to 
their rights that the Union can be maintained. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman from 
North Carolina allow me to put an interrogatory 
to him? 

Mr. HOUSTON. I object to any questions. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. It'ia a'very brief one. I 
desire to inquire whether the gentleman knows 
that his colleague [Mr. Calmer] is absent, hav- 
ing paired off with Mr. Caruthers, who is in bad 
health; and that he is not present to respond to his 
remarks ? 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I am aware 
cf that fact; and some of my friends know that I 
sought earnestly to obtain the floor while my col- 
league was still here. And I desire to say to the 
gentleman from Ohio, that no word which I utter 
here, will I refuse to proclaim in the face of my 
colleague here, or elsewhere. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not question that, at 
all. 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. What I say 
here will be published, and will reach the eye of 
my colleague. I will therefore be doing him no 
sort of injustice. I would have preferred that 
my colleague were present. But — lie having dis- 
charged his Parthian arrows— because he is now 
absent, I cannot consent to lose the first opportu- 
nity which presents itself, and no dbuhti,he only 
one I shall have, to make my reply. The poison 
which he has emitted is, even now, being circu- 
lated in North Carolina; and I am unwilling it 
should be administered without the antidote I in-' 
tend to prescribe. 

Mr. Chairman, if I have correctly compre- 
hended the speech of my colleague, he bases his 
opposition to the admission of Kansas under the 
Lecompton constitution, in other words, to her 
admission as a slave State, upon three points of 
objection: first, that the Green amend mentaffirms 
the right of a majority of the people to change the 
constitution at anytime they please; and that, by 
the establishment of that principle, slavery may 
be excluded whenever a majority of the people 
choose; second, that the population of Kansas is 
not sufficient to entitle her to admission; and, 
third, that the constitution framed at Lecompton 
is not the will of the people of that Territory. I 
propose to examine these several points. 

Now, sir, with all due respect for my colleague, 
I SL.y the Green amendment affirms no such thing. 
Here is the amendment, word for word, and letter 
for letter: 

' : And that nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge 
or inline,'!; any ri'_'ht of tin: people asserted In the constitu- 
tion of Kansas at all times to alter, reform, and abolish their 
form of government, in such manner as they may think 
proper, Congress hereby diselaimiim any authority to inter- 
vene or declare the construction ot the constitution of any 
Slate, except to see that it be republican in form, and not 
ill conflict with the Constitution of the United States." 

What is a fair construction of that amendment? 
Simply that we do not intend by the act of ad- 
mission to deny, as we do not affirm, any right 
of the people of Kansas, as asserted in their 
constitution, to alter or abolish their form of 
government; at the same time it. unequivocally 
declares that Congress has no right to intervene other- 
wise than to see that the constitution presented is 
republican in form, and no: in, cunjlietirith the Con- 
stitution of tne United Stales. This question re- 
quirca no argument — it admits of none — the lan- 



guage is so plain that to state it is to explain it. 
Now I am free to confess that I preferred the bill 
without that amendment; not for the reasons as- 
signed by my colleague, but because the premises 
amount, in my judgment, to a truism which no 
man who understands the true theory of our sys- 
tem of government would ever think of contro- 
verting. 1 therefore voted to strike it out. Mr. 
Chairman, the Congress of the United States 
might solemnly resolve, every legislative day in 
the year, from now " till the crack o' doom," 
! that the people of North Carolina had, or had not, 
the right to alter, amend, or abolish their present 
I form of government to suit themselves; but, sir, 
would their rights be thereby affected one way or 
another? Not at all; not at all — every State hav- 
ing the unquestionable right to alter or amend her 
constitution in her own way. 

But suppose my colleague's construction of the 
Green amendment is correct; admit, for the sake 
of the argument, that it does affirm the right of the 
people of Kansas to alter their constitution at any 
time they please, regardless of the restrictions in 
the instrument itself: does my colleague repudiate 
the principle? If he does, I call upon him to say 
how, as a member of the Senate of North Caro- 
[1 lina, solemnly sworn to support the constitution 
I of that State, he voted for the proposition of Gov- 
ernor Graham to call a convention to amend the 
const; mi ion, in a manner totally different from that 
prescribed in that instrument? Then let my col- 
; league yield his objection to the Green amend- 
ment, or acknowledge that he is but availing him- 
I self of that "policy," which, to use his own 
language, " is practiced in our little electioneering 
scufflesln our country, and which ought not to obtain 
in the Congress of our nation." 

Having listened to the gentleman's denuncia- 
tion and ridicule of the Green amendment in his 
j speech of the 30th March, who, Mr. Chairman, 
I could have supposed that in two days thereafter 
I he would have been found voting for it ! And yet 
j he did ! On the 30th of March it was wrong in 
i principle, and rendered the Senate bill worthless 
to the South; on the 1st of April, only two days, 
I repeat, after ho denounced and ridiculed it, when 
the gentleman from Mississippi moved to strike 
i it out, he voted with the whole body of the Oppo- 
! sition against the motion ! Voted against striking 
out an amendment which, in his opinion, so com- 
pletely emasculated the bill that it was deprived 
of every power of generating a single principle of 
the least value to the South ! 

But the gentleman may say that he voted against 
the Green amendment in order to save, if possible, 
the House bill. I do not by any means admit 
that he can thereby find a sufficient justification 
of his vote; but I am willing, for the sake of the 
! argument only, to give him the benefit of that 
. position; and now let us see whether he is justi- 
j liable in taking the Crittenden amendment in pref- 
erence to the Senate bill. The gentleman, in the 
| outset of his remarks, charged the Democratic 
[ party with praticing the unwise policy of encour- 
aging foreign immigration into the new States and 
Territories, by granting to aliens not naturalized 
| the right of suffrage, and by making them eligible 
; to offices of emolument and honor; and he held 
j up this policy as one that ought to receive the 
1 unqualified condemnation of the people, especially 
of the South, as it was injurious to her best in- 



3 



terests. Now let us compare the two hills in 
reference to these questions which my colleague 
thinks so vitally important. The Senate bill, 
which he condemn sand voted against, proposes to 
admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, ■ 
which, in the first section of the eighth article, 
defines the right of suffrage as follows: 

'*Sec. 1. Every mule citizen of the United States, above ] 
the age of twenty one years, having resided in this Stale 
one year, and in the comity, city, or town in which he may 
offer to vote, three months next preceding any election, 
shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled 
to vote at all elections." 

Here, then, is a principle which he deems j 
of vital importance to the South fully secured in 
this constitution. The Crittenden bill, which he 
voted for, proposes to refer the whole subject back 
to the people of Kansas. My colleague says Che 
majority in that Territory is opposed to the Le- 
compton constitution; of course, then, the Black 
Republicans would frame and establish a new con- 
stitution, incase he should succeed in crushing out 
Lecompton; and what kind of provisions, think 
you, that constitution would contain in reference ' 
to this question, which, he tells us, deserves the 
serious consideration of the South ? Why, sir, \ 
the latest intelligence from thatTerritory, fruitful 
of constitutions as Niobe of tears, represents that j 
the Black Republicans, anticipating the action of 1 
my colleague in the rejection of the slaveholding j 
and anti-alien-suffrage constitution of Lecompton, 
have already made another, which, as we are in- 
formed, not only confers this inestimable privilege 
upon foreigners, but upon negroes also! Now, 
what becomes of my colleague's Know-Nothing 
principle in reference to this subject? It has 
clearly been sacrificed to something; I leave him 
to say what. 

The Lecompton constitution contains the fol- 
lowing provisions in regard to eligibility to office, 
(article four:) 

" Sec 3. The Governor shall be at least thirty years of 
age, shall have been a citizen of the United Stales for twen- 
ty years, shall have resided in this State at least five years 
next preceding the day of his election," &c. 

'• Sec. 17. A Lieutenant Governor shall be elected at the 
same time and tor the same term as the Governor, and his 
qualifications, and the manner of his election, shall be the 
same in all respects." 

Here, then, is another principle which he com- 
mends to southern politicians. Now, I leave it to ! 
my colleague to say whether, judging from what 
we have already heard of the constitution lately j 
framed atLcavenworth, he hasany good reason to j 
expect that any other which may be adopted, j 
should he succeed in defeating the Lecompton 
constitution, will be likely to come up to his stand- 
ard of excellence in this regard ? In reference to 
this quest ion, however, I am inclined to think, not- 
withstanding what my colleague- has said upon 
this subject, he does not, after all, look upon it as ; 
anything mote than that sort of ''policy practiced in 
our little electioneering scuffles in our country;" for 1 
well remember that when he was a member of the 
North Carolina State Senate, he recommended a j 
regular, full-blooded Milesian, one PatMcGowan, ; 
for a Federal office under General Pierce, thereby 
proving very clearly that, in reference to thisprin-: 
ciple which he so seriously commended to south- j 
ern politicians — and the same may be said of his { 
opposition to the Green amendment also — he is, 
if he will permit me, by way of illustration, to use I 
one of the elegant anecdotes with which he em- 



bellished his speech, " a sorter so, and a sorter 
not so, and rather more a sorter so than a sorter 
not so." He commends the principle of exclud- 
ing foreigners from office, and gives the influence 
of his name toward procuring office for one of 
that class. He denounces the Green amendment 
in his speech, and then votes for it ! 

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another of my col- 
league's long cherished principles which I think 
he sacrificed to his hostility to Lecompton. For 
many years he and his party in North Carolina, 
have contended that the public lands were waste- 
fully squandered upon the new States, to the great 
prejudice of North Carolina and the other old 
States. This matter has been presented to the 
people of our •• beloved South, I (to borrow the 
gentleman's term of endearment,) and enforced 
with an array of statistical tables that would appal 
old Mr. Dabnll himself. With the most eloquent 
and disinterested appeals, the people of North Car- 
olina have been urged to send to Congress gentle- 
men of my colleague's political faith, who would 
be sure to guard the public domain, and see that 
they got "their full share." Now, sir, how has 
my colleague proposed to secure for North Caro- 
lina her just and rightful interest in the immense 
public domain in Kansas, amounting, as I think, 
to about eighty millions of acres? 

-'•Sec. '2. And he it further enacted, That the State of 
tiou that said State shall never interfere with the primary 



United States within the limits of said State." 

Here is the just and rightful claim of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States to all the unsold 
lands in Kansas, fairly " nominated in the bond," 
and thereby secured for the benefit of North Car- 
olina and ail the other States alike My colleague 
voted against this just and necessary measure of 
security; and while he told us that the President 
is unworthy of our confidence, he nevertheless 
proposed not only to depart from the constitu- 
tional mode of admitting Kansas by act of Con- 
gress, but to confer upon the President the power 
to bring her into the Confederacy by his own mere 
ipse dixit, so.soon as she should offer to him a con- 
stitution, regardless of its provisions. Now, sir, 
suppose that the people of Kansas (the bill for 
which my colleague voted having become a law, 
and the President invested with that stupendous 
power) should reject the Lecompton constitution, 
and my colleague takes the ground that they 
would, for he voted against the Senate bill because 
he says it is not the will of her people, and then 
proceed to frame another constitution, in which 
they solemnly declare that the entire public do- 
main within her borders belongs of right to the 
sovereign State of Kansas, and can be used for 
her benefit alone — that constitution being pre- 
sented to the President, he will be compelled, in 
obedience to the Crittenden bill, to induct her into 
the Confederacy: would my colleague, as a law- 
yer, undertake to prosecute the claim of North 
Carolina to her just and eqtial share of those 
public lands? Sir, how would he bring his action, 
and in what court, pray ? 

Another objection to the admission of Kansas 
(under the Lecompton constitution, mark you) is the 



insufficiency, of her population. To this objection 
1 shall devote but few words. Admitting very 
fully the general principle that a State ought to 
have the number of population fixed by the law 
for the time being as the representative ratio, I 
am not. prepared to deny that, under peculiar cir- 
cumstances, acting under a sound discretion, Con- 
gress may depart from the rule. In the present 
case, Kowerer, it appears to be admitted on all 
sides, so far as I know, that Kansas has the requi- 
site population. General Pierce seems to have 
been of that opinion as far back as the last Con- 
gress. Mr. Buchanan is evidently of the same 
mind. It is not controverted either in the report 
of Judge Douglas, or that of Messrs. Collamer 
and Wade, made during the present session; and 
I know of no one, except my colleague, who has 
raised the question. So far as he is concerned, I 
shall dispose of it in a very few words. My col- 
league offered a bill himself for the admission of 
Kansas; and I have only to say, that if the pop- 
ulation of that Territory be sufficient to justify 
her admission under his bill, it strikes my pool- 
judgment that it is equally sufficient to justify her 
admission under the Senate bill. 

The other point made by the gentleman from 
North Carolina is, that the Lecompton constitu- 
tion is not the will of the people of Kansas. In 
order that I may be properly understood in what 
I shall say upon this point, it is necessary that I 
should refer, as briefly as may be, to the legisla- 
tion of Congress in reference to slavery, and to 
the events which have transpired in Kansas. On 
the application of Missouri to become one of the 
States of the Union, she was refused admission on 
account of the slavery feature of her constitution. 
In vain did southern members, and the conserva- 
tive portion of northern men, urge that Congress 
had no right to reject a State for any other reason 
save that her constitution was anti-republican. A 
bitter contest arose, which excited serious appre- 
hensions on account of the safety of the Union. At 
length the proposition contained in the eighth sec- 
tion of the act of March 6, 1820, by which slavery 
was to be excluded from all the territory of the Uni- 
ted States north of the line of 36° 30', was offered, 
and, in an evil hour, accepted by the South. This 
was to be a compact, a bond of peace! and yet, 
in the very next year after its adoption, it was set 
at defiance by the North. Again and again, sub- 
sequently, when the South applied for the admis- 
sion of new slave States, this sacred compact, as 
it has been called, and for which iny colleague has 
so much veneration, was utterly repudiated by 
that section which had forced it upon the South 
as a measure of peace and harmony. At length, 
after the conclusion of the war with Mexico, by 
which we acquired extensive territory , some of 
which was south of the Missouri restriction line, 
in utter violation of that compromise, and in total 
disregard of every principle of justice, an effort 
was made to exclude us from a just and equal par- 
ticipation in the fruits of that glorious war by the 
application of the Wilmot proviso, thereby in- 
tending to exclude us from all that vast territory, 
acquired, as it had been, by a common expend- 
iture of blood and treasure, of which — and I do 
the North no injustice when I say it — the South 
contributed her full share. 

At this crisis the South agreed to run the Mis- 
souri line through to the Pacific, and thus forever 



settle the dispute: this offer was persistently re- 
jected by the very men who have since proclaimed 
that compromise a sacred compact, binding as the 
Constitution itself! Denied even this small con- 
cession to our just demands, nothing was left the 
South but to fall back upon her constitutional 
rights, and to insist upon equal privileges in all 
the Territories. Aftera struggle which shook this 
Republic to its deep foundations, the question was 
disposed of, so far as Utah and New Mexico were 
concerned, by the legislation of 1850. I shall not 
stop here to inquire into the wisdom of the com- 
promise measures of that year. I may say, how- 
ever, enpassant, that according to my honest opin- 
ion, the South fared in this as she had done in 
every other compromise to which she hasgiven her 
assent. Peace, or rather a truce, was obtained for 
a brief period, until at length Congress undertook 
to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
braska, in 1854. In the mean time both the po- 
litical parties then struggling for power, adopted 
in their platforms the principle of non-interven- 
tion asserted in the legislation of 1850. In order 
fairly to carry out thai principle in organizing the 
Territories of Kansasand Nebraska, it became ne- 
cessary to repeal the Missouri restriction, which 
excluded slave property from those Territories. 
The time had now come when the soundness of 
the two parties, and their fidelity to the principles 
asserted in 1850, and affirmed in both party plat- 
formsin 1852, were to be tested. Theresultproved 
that the northern wing of the Whig party, which 
in the days of its great leaders, Clay and Web- 
ster, had always given evidence of the possession 
of some conservative principle, was utterly un- 
sound, and it soon fell into that grave to which 
it was so justly consigned. The Democratic party, 
aided by most of the southern Whigs, repealed 
the Missouri restriction, and firmly established 
the principle of non-intervention. 

The Territory of Kansas was thus opened up 
for settlement by southern as well as northern 
men, and the Black Republican party, which. had 
crawled forth from tm5 ruins of the Whig party, 
like a huge serpent from among the fallen columns 
of some magnificent temple, soon found that if 
left to herself, and emigration permitted to flow 
through its natural channels, Kansas would be- 
come a slaveholding State. An emigrant aid so- 
ciety, with a capital of $5,000,000, was chartered 
by theLegislatureof Massachusetts, whose object 
was the settlement of Kansas with a free-Soil pop- 
ulation, to wrest that fine Territory from the 
South, and thereby prevent another slave State 
from being admitted into the Union. Maddened 
by the pious eloquence of such fanatics as Parker 
and Beecher, and inflamed by the vehement dec- 
lamation of the Black Republican leaders, thou- 
sands of Kansas-shriekers, armed with rifles and 
revolvers, rushed into the Territory. 

The laws passed by the Territorial Legislature 
were repudiated; the regularly constituted author- 
ities set at defiance; and a spurious government 
set up by these traitors, who placed themselves in 
a state of open rebellion. Sir, is this picture over- 
drawn ? Will my colleague deny that the Free- 
Soil party in Kansas, whose violated rights he 
so feelingly deplores, was in a state of rebellion 
against the government established by Congress ? 
We have the official evidence of Governor Walker 
i to sustain the declaration. 



In his proclamation to the people of Kansas, 
after making most earnest appeals, he says: 

"A reiicllinn so iniquitous, and necessarily involving such 
awful consequences, has never before disgraced any age or 
country. 

" Permit me to call your attention, as still claiming to be 
citizens of the United States, to the results of your revolu- 
tionary proceedings. You are inaugurating rebellion and 
revolution ; you are disregarding the laws of Congress and 
of tin' territorial government, and defying their authority ; 
you are conspiring to overthrow tl|e Government of the 
United States in this Territory. Vour purpose, if carried 
into effect, in the mode designated by you, by putting your 
laws forcibly into execution, would involve you in the guilt 
and crime of treason." 

He further says: 

" Under these circumstances, you have proceeded to es- 
tablish a government for the city of Lawrence in direct defi 
ance of the territorial government, and denying its existence 
and authority. Yon have imposed upon all those officers 
the duty of taking an oath to support this so-called State 
constitution ; thus distinctly superseding, so far as in your 
power, the territorial government created by the Congress 
of the United States." 

Governor Walker, in his letter to the Secretary 
of State of July 20, 1857, says: 

"There is imminent dnmrer. unless the territorial govern- 
ment is sustained by a large body of the troops of tbfi United 
States, that, for all practical purposes, it will be overthrown, 
or reduced to a condition of absolute imbecility. I am eon- 
strained, therefore, to inform you that, with a view to sustain 
the authority of the United States in this Territory, it is 

indispensably necessary that we should have inn liately 

stationed at Fort Leavenworth at least two thousand regu- 
lar troops, and that General Harney should be retained in 
command." 

If this evidence is not complete, I will add that 
which my colleague cannot gainsay. In his issue 
of the lOtli February, 1858, the editor of the Ra- 
leigh Register says: 

"The unreasonable, unjust, and treasonable course of 

forth by the President, who. when he denounces them as 
rebels, uses the word best calculated properly to character- 
ize their conduct. These men have committed the very 
offense in Kansas which the Mormons perpetrated in Utah. 
They have defied the authority of the laws and the Gov- 
ernment, and attempted to set up an imperiun in imperio 
in Kansas. To say, th 
traitors and rebels she 
eompton constitution 
reward treason." 

Discord then reigned in that unhappy Territory, 
and it became evident that the only mode by which 
quiet could be gained, and peace restored to Kan- 
sas and the country, was by procuring her ad mis- 
sion as a State into the Confederacy. An act was 
therefore passed by the Territorial Legislature to 
provide for taking the sense of the people as to 
the expediency of calling; a convention to frame 
a constituiion. At a regular and fair election thus 
legally authorized, the' people voted with great 
unanimity in favor of a convention. The next 
Legislature passed an act to provide for the elec- 
tion of delegates to a convention to be composed 
of sixty members, who were to be apportioned 
among the several counties of the Territory in pro- 
portion to their population, which was to be as- 
certained by taking a census. This act was vetoed 
by Governor Geary because it contained no pro- 
vision for submitting the constitution to the peo- 
ple for ratification or rejection. The Legislature 
then passed it over the Governor's veto by a two- 
thirds vote, and it thus became a law. 

The convention thus elected assembled at Le- 
compton, and framed the constitution under which 
Kansas now asks for admission into the Union. 
My colleague says it does not embody the will 



letup an imu.Tinm in 
e. that the bowlings 

countenance lawlessr 



of the people, and he therefore is against it. His 
language is: 

" I must say that when T hear it asserted here, and every- 
where, and the proofs strongly tending to show that the 
government of Kansas was, in the first instance, ruthlessly 
snatched from the people, unconstitutional test oaths ap- 
plied, by which the minority, who by fraud obtained the 
control of the government, and by which the majority were 
; kept from participating in the government ; when I am told, 
] and the proof tends that way, that not more than one half 
of the counties of the Territory were permitted to be repra- 
; sented in the convention, I doubt the propriety of support- 
ing the constitution framed thus." 

Government of Kansas ruthlessly snatched from 
the people! test oaths! majority kept from a par- 
ticipation in the government ! not more than half 
the counties permitted to be represented in the 
convention ! These are the charges which have 
been made and so often repeated through all the 
different moods and tenses by the whole Black 
Republican school, and now gravely affirmed by 
my colleague. Sir, if the name of the senior mem- 
ber from Ohio had been affkeed to the above ex- 
tract instead of my colleague, would any one have 
doubted its authenticity? Says Mr. Giddings: 
" Usurpations and brute force were resorted to for 
the purpose of extendingand supporting slavery." 
Says Mr. Wilson: " In this contest, slavery has 
startled the nation by a series of acts of violence 
and frauds," &c. So said Mr. Seward, Mr. Har- 
lan, and other Black Republicans who have 
spoken upon the question. These are the author- 
ities, I suppose, upon which my colleague relies 
[ to sustain his charges against the pro-slavery party 
j in Kansas ! Why, sir, this cry was commenced 
in 1854, immediately after the passage of the Kan- 
I sas and Nebraska bill, and it has been kept up 
j ever since. Sorry am I that southern men are 
j now found to join in it. That the pro-slavery 
j men have committed no wrongs, I am far from 
saying. Assailed, as they have been, by lawless 
bands of Abolitionists, who boasted of their in- 
I tention, first to abolitionize Kansas and then over- 
run Missouri, they would have been more or less 
than men had they borne themselves faultless in 
such a contest. But, sir, can the changes against 
the pro-slavery party, made by my colleague, be 
sustained by any other authority than that to 
which I have alluded? 

I have already proved by Governor Walker, 
I as well as by the Raleigh Register, that these dis- 
I organizers were in a state of rebellion and resist- 
| ance to the laws. That they refused to register 
j their names and establish for themselves such 
| form of government as they desired, the evidence 
is equally abundant. In the affidavit of George 
Wilson , contained in Senate report by Mr. Green, 
J he says: 

" At the time when the census was taken under the law 
providing for the Lecompton convention, 1 was the acting 
I judge of probate for Anderson county, Kansas, and am aware 
of the fact that the two wings of the tree State party of that 
county, composed of more moderate Free Snilers and the 
adherents of Lane, threatened the life of any who should 
attempt to take the legal census ; and I can say, under oath, 
that the life of any one making the attempt to execute the 
law in that particular was in danger, and the foregoing 
threats were the cause which prevented the taking of the 
census in Anderson county within the prescribed time." 
* * * * " In regard to Passmore Williams, 
judge of probate for Allen County, members of the so-called 
free State party stated to me in person that ifhe attempted 
to execute the law, and did not leave, they would kill him ; 
and I know the fact that he did not so exi cute the law, and 
left the county because he believed bis life in danger. Mr. 
Williams is from Illinois, and is a free State man, but be- 
longs to the Democratic party." * * * * 



" Tn regard to Esquire Yocum, judge of probate for Frank- 
lin county, he left the county and the Territory on account 
of losing his negro property, and having his life menaced. 
The office being vacant, the Legislature which passed the 
census law appointed <i new judge of probate and other 
olik-ers. who refused to serve, alleging as a reason, that 
they were afraid so doing would cost them their lives. Con 
scquentlv, no census was taken, and no legal election 
held." 

If my time would admit, I might adduce further 
proof of the same import. 

But my colleague says test oaths were imposed. 
One of them was an oath binding officers to sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States, the or- 
ganic act, and the fugitive Slave law; this, at least, 
was not, to my mind, so very monstrous — but they 
were all repealed before the constitutional conven- 
tion was called, so that no complaint could exist 
on that score. But these poor innocents, these meek 
and orderly Black Republicans, were disfranchised 
in half the counties in the Territory ! Sir, has my 
colleague been so intent in his labor of love in hunt- 
ing up charges against the pro-slavery party in 
Kansas, that he has not had time to look at the 
official evidence? I have already shown that the 
Free-Soilers refused to register their names, and 
actually drove off the officers and would not per- 
mit them to discharge their duties. It i'3 well 
known that several of the counties alluded to had 
no population; in others there were not more than 
ten or fifteen voters each; in all of them together 
the Free-Soilers could only drum up about four- 
teen hundred at the election on the 14th of Jan- 
uary, although they had everything their own 
way — the pro-slavery men denying the validity 
of the election and poking no part in it. These 
people were not disfranchised and denied a par- 
ticipation in the territorial government and form- 
ation of the constitution. Although urged by 
every consideration that could animate patriots 
and influence good citizens, they factiously re- 
fused to have part or lot in the matter. 

Now, I have shown by evidence which my col- 
league cannot impugn, that these people are de- 
prived of no rights; that they themselves refused 
to participate in the elections, and have no right 
to come here now and claim to take advantage of 
their own wrong. If they were in the majority, 
they should have resorted to the peaceful and re- 
publican method of the ballot-box to redress them- 
selves. If, as is most likely, they were in the mi- 
nority, they had no wrongs to be redressed. 

Mr. Chairman, the constitution of Kansas was 
framed in a regular mariner, and in strict accord- 
ance witli all the requirements and forms of law; 
but my colleague would haVe it referred to the 
peoplefor ratification or rejection. Is it neces- 
sary to submit a constitution in order to ascertain 
the will of the people, and make it binding? Then 
the constitution of North Carolina has no validi- 
ty, for it was not submitted ! Then the constitu- 
tions of all the rest of the original thirteen States, 
except one, are of no binding force; for I believe 
Massachusetts is the only one which submitted 
her constitution ! 

This doctrine would, moreover, remand to a 
territorial form of government thirteen out of the 
eighteen new States that have been admitted; for 
five only of them all have submitted their consti- 
tutions. Every one knows that the constitution 
of the United States was never so submitted; and I 
so far as North Carolina is concerned, and I think 



the same was the case in all the rest, even the del- 
egates to the convention which framed that instru- 
ment were not elected by the people, but by the 
Legislatures. 

But, sir, I want to know of my colleague how 
long he has advocated the doctrine that it was the 
duty of the Lecompton convention to submit the 
result of their labors to the people? In the late 
canvass between my competitor and myself, in 
the first district, he took open ground against sub- 
mission, and denounced the Administration for 
favoringitthroughGovernorWalker. He declared 
that it would be a flagrant wrong to the South. I 
said then, as I repeat now, that the submission 
or refusal to submit the constitution of Kansas 
was a question with which neither the President, 
nor Governor Walker, nor my opponent, nor 
myself, nor any one else outside of Kansas, had 
anything to do; that it belonged solely to the con- 
vention, which had a complete right to submit it or 
not, as, in its wisdom, it might see fit. That con- 
vention did not choose to submit it to the people, 
and who has a right to complain ? Surely the 
people of North Carolina have not, nor do they. 

In order, however, to remove every ground of 
complaint, the slavery article, which was the only 
disturbing question, was referred to them for rat- 
ification or rejection. A fair election was held, 
and a majority of five thousand six hundred and 
fifty-seven votes was polled in favor of slavery; 
but my captious colleague contends that there 
were fraudulent votes given. Well, I do not doubt 
that there were; but has he, or any of his coadju- 
tors, undertaken to prove that there were five thou- 
sand six hundred and fifty-seven fraudulent votes? 
By no means; no one has ever made any such 
pretension. Until that shall be done, this consti- 
tution must stand as the will of the people of 
Kansas, unless amended or abolished according to 
the forms of law. It stands vindicated by a prin- 
ciple of constitutional law so firmly fixed in the 
hearts of the American people, that no battery of 
logic and no fund of anecdote that my colleague 
can bring against it can move it from its base. 

But my indefatigable colleague says that a ma- 
jority of ten thousand votes were cast against the 
Lecompton constitutional the election on the 4th 
of January, and that General Cass, as .Secretary 
of State, acknowledged the validity of that elec- 
tion. Why, sir, we all know that the convention 
which framed the constitution provided for an 
election to be held on the 21st of December, to take 
the sense of the people upon the constitution, or 
rather the slavery clause. I have already stated 
the result of that election; it is idle — without 
meaning any disrespect to my colleague — it is ab- 
surd, to say that the Territorial Legislature had 
power to order another election. The Democratic 
party in Kansas so considered the matter, and 
took no part in it. No vote cast at that election 
can affect the validity of the Lecompton constitu- 
tion. But my colleague says that General Cass, 
as Secretary of State, acknowledged the validity 
of that election. Sir, I am amazed that my col- 
league should be so reckless in his zeal to defeat 
the Lecompton constitution as to make assertions 
that are so easily disproved by the record. In his 
letter of the 11th of December, 1857, to Secretary 
Denver, General Cass says: 

" It is proper to add, that no action of the Territorial Le- 
gislature about to meet, can interfere with the elections of 



On- 21<i of Decemhej and the °.(>th of January, 
and manner prescribed hy the constitutional 

Why, then, should not Kansas be admitted un- 
der it, this whole subject localized, and she left to 
manage her own affairs in her own way? Twice 
have Jim Lane and his myrmidons had an op- 
portunity of voting upon this question. Will my 
colleague still insist upon giving them a third 
chance? He speaks of bringing two Jim Lanes 
here as Senators; if the Black Republicans have 
the Legislature, two Senators of that stripe will 
be sent any way, it may be. My colleague is not 
satisfied with that; his action, if successful, would 
abolish a constitution which has made Kansas at 
tiiis moment, to use the language of the President, 
" as much a slave State as Georgia or South Caro- 
lina," and with equal certainty he would make it 
a free State, provided he is right in saying the 
Abolitionists are in the majority. Says Mr. Bur- 
ungame, in his late speech in the House: 

" I will vote for it [Crittenden bill] because I think that 
it will make Kansas a free State. The Administration savs 
it is a slav,' Territory trf-dav— the Leeompton constitution 



forin, and that Kansas would he a slave State under it." 

Sir, does not my colleague see and know that 
the object of the Black Republicans is to give the 
Abolitionists in Kansas another chance, and to 
keep alive this question, which is the very aliment 
upon which the monster Black Republicanism 
feeds, to aid them in bringing into this Hall a 
Black Republican majority in the next Congress, 
and so strengthen themselves for the mighty 
struggle they are to make in I860? And this 
" unparalleled outrage," as the Raleigh Register 
styles it, is to be perpetrated by the agency, in 
part, of southern Representatives. The mem- 
ber front Massachusetts [Mr. Burling'ame] tells 
us the alliance has been formed, and he, a prophet 
of evil, vauntingly predicts the result! What is 
it? I will let him speak for himself. Listen: 

" I also felt proud to hear the speech of the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. Bell.] I was glad to hear 
Uieir confreres on this floor, Messrs, IInderwood of Ken- 
tucky, Gn.Mi-K of North Carolina, Kicaitd and Harris of 
Maryland, and Davis, with hi- surpassing eloquence, wor- 
thy of the best days of Pinkney and Wirt ; and 1 also ex- 
press my grstiiude to Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, who has 
labored so long to secure this union of patriotic men. 1 owe 
it to these men, and to myself, to say that [ do not agree 
will] them on the subject of slavery, and 1 know thai they 
do not agree with me. Neither do I agree with the Doug- 
las men ; I take what I think is a'higher portion. I hold 
to the power of Congress over the Territories; they do not. 
But while I oppose the Leeompton ( 'o, , solution for one rea- 

oi!i,V. the South Americans may oppose it for still another. 



minds. 1 trust that this may he an omen of what may hap 

Here we have the triple alliance of Black Repub- 
licans, Douglas Democrats, and southern Know 
Nothings ! Now for the results of that unnatural 
combination! Addressing himself to the thirty' 
patriotic and fearless Democrats who have dared 
todo their duty here by standing up for the consti- 
tutional rights of the South, he says: 

"They will ask you why the Army of the United States j 
have shot down American citizens in the streets of Wash- j 
irtgton, and why it was held in terrorem over the people of | 
Kansas so Ions." And they will ask you, doughfaces of the 
North, why you sat still in your seats, and allowed men to j 
call your constituents, because they toiled, mud-sills and | 



slaves? You will have to answer all these things. You 
cannot do it, and we shall heat you like a threshing floor. 
We shall hereafter have a majority in this House. We shall 
strengthen ourselves in the Senate, anil we are to-day fill- 
ing all the land with the portents of your general doom in 
1880." 

Sir, the thing is plain to the dullest eye! It 
stands out gross and palpable, and no man can 
fail to see it who is not blinded by his prejudices 
against the Democratic^ party, that party upon 
which the hopes and the destinies of this mighty 
Republic hang ! Witness the efforts they are mak- 
ing to defeat the Leeompton constitution; look at 
the solid front they present here whenever a vote 
is taken on the question; read their speeches and 
listen to the shouts of exultation that have already 
been sent forth from their party press in anticipa- 
tion of the defeat of this great measure ! 1 quote 
from the Albany Evening Journal: 

'•Tim vote in the House of Representatives virtually re- 
pudiating the scheme of villain) inaugurated by the border 
ruffians of Missouri, with the connivance of President 



de-|r 



the It 



arid courage to those who began to 
. Conscience seems about to resume 
n whence it never should have been 
banished. For ten lone years, nearly, the moral sentiment 
of the nation has been deteriorating. The sense of justice, 
the love of liberty, and allegiance to God. have all been wan- 
ing. Neighboring nations have been rubbed, men have been 
reduced to slaves within the shadow of Faneui] Hall, and 
the higher law has been denounced and derided. Intidels 
to humanity. Scoffers at the law of God, and recreants to 
freedom, have reveled in power ami plunder. But a day of 
reckoning is at hand. The nation-s heart throbs with new 
feelings. Hope is 'jiving place to despair, and freedom is 
asserting its claims to reverence Every wher tat the North, 
and even in the SatrfA, we see that the spirit of liberty 
(Abolitionism) is working among the people, and the recent 
vote in Congress is hut "an index of that feeling. This 
awakening n f the conscience of the people should inspire 
us with new zeal, and lead to redoubled efforts in the cause 
of freedom (Black Republicanism.) The overthrow of the 
slave power is approaching." 

Mr. Chairman, I have not said all that I desired 
to in reply to my colleague. My timq/will not ad- 
mit. 1 am admonished that it has already nearly 
expired; but I cannot resume my seat without 
giving expression here in my place to the indig- 
nation I felt on seeing the senior member from 
Ohio offering his congratulations to my colleague 
at the close of his speech. Onco before, during 
my legislative experience here, it has been my 
lot to witness a similar exhibition. Once before 
have I seen the enemies of the South congratu- 
late a southern man on account of a speech he 
had made upon a question in which the rights of 
the South were involved. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman allow 
me to interrupt him? Did I understand the gen- 
tleman to say that I went to Mr. Gilmer and 
congratulated him? May I correct him in that 
statement? 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I am aware 
that the gentleman from Ohio congratulated him 
upon his speech. I saw the gentleman approach 
my colleague as he approached another gentleman 
upon a former occasion, who had made a speech in 
reference to southern rights. I saw the gentleman 
approach him with both hands extended, and I im- 
agined that he was pronouncinga benediction upon 
my colleague, which would be a withering curse 
upon him to his grave. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Does the gentleman intend 
to represent me as congratulating Mr. Gilmer ? 
Does he understand that I went towards Mr. 
Gilmer to congratulate him? 



HBKHRY OF 



CONGRESS 



8 



Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I say that 
the gentleman did go towards him, shake him by 
the hand, and, I suppose, congratulate him. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. Let me say that the gentle- 
man is entirely mistaken. 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Why, sir, I 
saw it with my own eyes, and there were gen- 
tlemen upon this side whose attention was called 
to it. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I will correct the gentleman. 
Let me explain it. 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I beg the 
gentleman not to interrupt me. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I wish to correct the gen- I 
tleman. [Loud cries of " Order!"] 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I ask the j 
gentleman from Ohio, then, if he did notapproach I 
my colleague, at the conclusion of his speech, 
shake him by the hands, and offer his congratu- 
lations? 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not. Mr. Gilmer was | 
in his place, and I was in the aisle. I inquired of 
him if he intended to compare my name with that j 
of James Buchanan. I neither gave him my hand j 
nor took his. 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I know not, 
nor do I pretend to say, what occurred between 
the gentlemen. I say, again, that I not only saw 
the gentleman approach my colleague and extend 
towards him both hands 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not. The gentleman is 
mistaken. I did not. [Loud cries of " Order! 1 '] 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I not only 
saw him, but some fifteen or twenty others saw 
him approach my colleague; and I must be per- 
mitted to say that, when I witnessed that spec- 
tacle, I felt, as I feel now, that whenever the 
time should come 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I say the gentleman is en- 
tirely mistaken. [Renewed and deafening shouts 
of "Older!" from the Democratic side of the 
House.] 




016 089 346 1 



Mr. CLINGMA 
order. 

Mr. KEITT. I insist that order shall be pre- 
served in the committee. The gentleman from 
North Carolina is entitled to the floor, and declines 
to yield it. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South 
Carolina is out of order. 

Mr. KEITT. The gentleman from Ohio- 

[Loud and continued shouts of " Order!" from 
the Republican side of the House.] 

Mr. KEITT. Let the blackguards over there 
act thus outside of the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North 
Carolina is entitled to the floor, and will pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. As I said be- 
fore, I do not undertake to say what passed i«o 
tween the gentleman from Ohio and my colleasrn- 
I know not what the gentleman from Ohio s»n i. 
but I know he said something very grateful t 
my colleague's feelings, for there was a smile > 
complacency on his face. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I say I did not take Mr 
Gilmer's hand. [Cries of " Order!"] 

Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Many gen- 
tlemen here know that the scene occurred as I 
have described it; and, sir, as I was about to say 
when I was interrupted, when I witnessed it, I 
felt, as I feel now, that if ever the time should 
come when I should be so far capable of misrep- 
resenting the honorable and confiding constituen- 
cy which had sent me here to protect their rights 
and defend their honor, as to make a speech that 
would bring down upon my head the approbation 
and congratulations of the gentleman from Ohio 
and his allies upon that side, I should instinctively 
raise my hands to Heaven and. in the language of 
the Indian prince exclaim, " What have I done 
that the enemies of my country should praise 
me ?" 

[Here the hammer fell.] 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




016 089 346 1 



